Is weight gain associated with the incidence of periodontitis? A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This study aimed to conduct a systematic review assessing the effects of weight gain on the incidence of periodontitis in adults. METHODS: Electronic searches in four databases were performed up to and including February 2015. Only prospective longitudinal studies assessing the association between weight gain and the incidence of periodontitis in adults were eligible to be included in this study. All studies should state a clear description of nutritional status (Body Mass Index; Waist Circumference) as well as the case definition of periodontitis. Pooled relative risks (RR) for becoming overweight and obese on the incidence of periodontitis were estimated by meta-analysis. Quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for cohort studies. RESULTS: Five articles were included in this review and meta-analysis with 42,198 subjects enrolled. Subjects who became overweight and obese presented higher risk to develop new cases of periodontitis (RR 1.13; 95%CI 1.06-1.20 and RR 1.33 95%CI 1.21-1.47 respectively) compared with counterparts who stayed in normal weight. CONCLUSIONS: A clear positive association between weight gain and new cases of periodontitis was found. However, these results are originated from limited evidence. Thus, more studies with longitudinal prospective design are needed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".